Paper detail

Uncertainties and biases of source masses derived from fits of integrated fluxes or image intensities

Fitting spectral distributions of total fluxes or image intensities are two standard methods for estimating the masses of starless cores and protostellar envelopes. These mass estimates, which are the main source and basis of our knowledge of the origin and evolution of self-gravitating cores and protostars, are uncertain. In this model-based study, a grid of radiative transfer models of starless cores and protostellar envelopes was computed and their total fluxes and image intensities were fitted to derive the model masses. To investigate intrinsic effects related to the physical objects, all observational complications were explicitly ignored. Known true values of the numerical models allow us to assess the qualities of the methods and fitting models, as well as the effects of nonuniform temperatures, far-infrared opacity slope, selected subsets of wavelengths, background subtraction, and angular resolutions. The method of fitting image intensities gives more accurate masses for more resolved objects than the method of fitting total fluxes. With the latter, a fitting model that assumes optically thin emission gives much better results than the one allowing substantial optical depths. Temperature excesses within the objects above the mass-averaged values skew their spectral shapes towards shorter wavelengths, leading to masses underestimated typically by factors 2-5. With a fixed opacity slope deviating from the true value by a factor of 1.2, derived masses are inaccurate within a factor of 2. The most accurate masses of the models are estimated by fitting just two or three longest-wavelength fluxes. Conventional algorithm of background subtraction is a likely source of large systematic errors. The absolute values of masses of the unresolved or poorly resolved objects in star-forming regions are uncertain to within at least a factor of 2-3.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.